SINGLE TAX.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 12, 14 July 1896, Page 2

SINGLE TAX.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— l notice that in last night's Star Mr Wilks explains the Single Tax. As his explanation is not correct, perhaps you will allow me to say what the Single Tax is. Single Taxers propose that all general and local revenue be raised by a tax on the ground rental value of all land, assessed periodically, and without any exemption or graduation. To bring it into force, Single Taxers propose to gradually increase the present land tax, at the same time remitting a corresponding amount of our present taxes, and continue these operations until all our revenue is derived from ground rental values, and all other taxes are swept away. The Single Tax would be payable at the Post Office, so that the expense would be reduced to a minimum. Mortgagees would be treated as part owners in proportion to the amount of the mortgage. It would not disturb existing titles at all, the land would still be freehold subject only to the tax, and all our complicated land laws, leases in perpetuity, etc., might be swept away, and a uniform system of freehold substituted. Improvements would be absolutely exempted from all taxation. The Single Tax is not land nationalisation, it is not State ownership. Single Taxers object strongly to both these systems. The above is a simple explanation of the Single Tax. I may return to the subject and give an outline of the reasons which Single Taxers have for their belief, but I must now say a word or two in reply to certain letters on the subject. Re clause 2 of Mr Wilks' letter, that gentleman is mistaken in supposing that the debenture scheme he alludes to is an integral part of the Single Tax proposals. The proposal was put forward by the Auckland Single Taxers as an alternative method of bringing the Single Tax into force, and to meet the views of those who think that compensation should be paid to existing owners. The proposal was to buy the right to cbarge ground rent {not the land), paying existing owners in debentures bearing 5 per cent interest, and charging the land with a ground rent of 5 per cent, At first these would balance, but as the land increased in value the surplus ground rent would be used to redeem the debentures and it is calculated that in about twenty-five years the debentures would all be redeemed, all existing taxation repealed, and all national and local revenue de- ' rived from ground rent. If a farmer seeking land was offered two exactly similar farms, one ten miles from a store, the other close to a store, he would, if a sensible man, chose the latter ; if a business man he would even be willing to pay a little more for it, as he would see that it would save his time and wear and tear in travelling. Therefore, it is ' not untrue to say that a store, for ex- < ample, does add to the value of land in the vicinity. A storekeeper no more ' lives on the farmer than the farmer on the storekeeper. The latter is just as 1 necessary to production as the farmer. ■ Economical production includes all processes undergone by any article from the first seed, or raw material, to the I finished article placed in the bands of the final consumers. Mr Wilks pities, and rightly so, the poor Egyptians when Joseph had nobbled all their land, and made them slaves. I would ask him to • show us if it makes any difference f whether Joseph alone, or Joseph and all I his brethren, own the land. Would not ■ the landless men be enslaved just the same ? Single Taxers say that is just the position in England to-day. A few - thousand Josephs own all the land J the remaining landless millions are more f or less enslaved. We in New Zealand are fast drifting into the same position. Mr Roots is also unfortunate in his - scriptural allusion. The Jewish land 1 laws, given by God to Moses, on Mt. 3 Sinai, expressly provided that there f should be no landless men, or only bj their own act until the Jubilee yeai (Leviticus XXV). With the simple pastoral life led by the Jews it was possible to give each family a portion of the land for their inalienable possession. II would not be possible now, but Single Taxers assert that the same principle applies now, and the same result would be attained if the ground rent (produced I by all the community) were taken at revenue for the use of the community. I am, &c, I T. West, * Feilding, July 9th, 1896.